Madhya Pradesh High Court
Abhishek Verma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:21602
1 CRR-2236-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2236 of 2024
ABHISHEK VERMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Vikas Rathi - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Jayesh Yadav - G.A for the respondent/State.
Reserved on 04.08.2025
Pronounced on 11.08.2025
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
This criminal revision under section 397 of the Cr.P.C, 1973 is
preferred being aggrieved by the judgment dated 4.4.2024 in criminal
appeal no.193/2023 by 4th A.S.J, Dewas arising out of judgment dated
30.06.2023 in RCT No.3504981/2015 by JMFC, Dewas whereby the
revision petitioner has been convicted under section 25(1-b) (a) of the
Arms Act, 1959 and has been sentenced to one year RI and fine of
Rs.500/- with default stipulation of further RI for 15 days.
2. Facts in brief are that officials of PS Industrial Area, Dewas
were on routine checking on 22.09.2015 at Amona Chouraha, Dewas
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:21602
2 CRR-2236-2024
and at 8.30 p.m, a Hero Honda Karizma motor cycle bearing
registration no.MP-41-MR-6164 came there and the same was stopped
for checking. The petitioner/accused tried to ran away and was
apprehended by ASI Ishwar Mandloi (PW/7) along with other officials
present at the spot. The revision petitioner was searched and a country
made pistol of 32 bore and two cartridges of 7.62 m.m were found from
the person of the revision petitioner that were kept on the back of the
revision petitioner. He was further interrogated and disclosed that other
arms and ammunition are in his house situated at Kalonibag, Dewas.
The memorandum of his disclosure was prepared and on the strength of
that two country made pistols were recovered at 00.30 a.m of
23.09.2015.
3. The crime no.862/2015 was registered at PS Industrial Area
Dewas. Completing investigation a final report was submitted under
section 3/181 & 146 of 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and section
25 & 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.
4. The revision petitioner was put to trial. The revision
petitioner abjured the guilt and claimed for trial pleading innocence.
5. To bring home the guilt, prosecution examined Head
Constable Sunil Sharma as PW/4, Constable Vishnu Dangi as PW/5,
Head Constable Khaliq Khan Pathan as PW/6, Ishwar Mandloi as PW/7,
Constable Kamal Puri Goswami as PW/8 along with Vijay @ Pintu as
PW/1, Jitendra as PW/2, Gopal as PW/3 and Subhashchandra Verma,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:21602
3 CRR-2236-2024
Astt. Grade-II in the office of Collector, Dewas as PW/9 and Kirti @
Himmatsingh as PW/10.
6. In examination under section 313 of the Cr.P.C, 1973,
revision petitioner/accused either denied or expressed ignorance
regarding the facts appeared against him in the prosecution evidence.
He did not adduce any evidence in his defence.
7. Appreciating the evidence, trial court acquitted the revision
petitioner/accused from the charges under sections 3/181 and 146 of 196
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and convicted the revision petitioner
under section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959 and sentenced as
mentioned in para-1 of the judgment. The revision petitioner preferred
the appeal and the appeal was dismissed affirming the conviction and
sentence. This revision petition is preferred on the ground that trial
court did not consider the fact that the Rojnamchasana which holds
material evidentiary value has not been proved before the trial court.
There were material contradictions in the statement of the official
witnesses. The symbol mark of the seal was not proved at the seizure
memo. Constable Kamal Puri Goswami (PW/8) has deposed
contradictory to the other official witnesses. The mandatory provisions
of the Arms Act, 1959 were not followed and committed gross error in
convicting and sentencing the revision petitioner.
8. Heard.
9. State has opposed the revision petition submitting that neither
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:21602
4 CRR-2236-2024
the findings recording conviction suffers any illegality or perversity nor
the conviction requires to be interfered as the revision petitioner has
significant criminal antecedents and minimum sentence has been
imposed.
10. Perused the record.
11. The appellate Court has discussed the objection of absence
of seal namuna in the seizure memo in para-26 of the judgment. The
coordinate bench of this Court in the case of Raju vs. State of M.P -
(2013) 1 ANJ - 228 has held the situation non sealing of seized property
at the spot and has held in para-7 as under:
7. The learned counsel for the applicant has
challenged that after the seizure, katta and cartridge were not
sealed properly. Shri R.K.Choubey has accepted that at the
time of seizure he did not have any sealing material and
therefore, such things could not be sealed at the spot but those
were sealed at the Police Station. However, those articles
were sent to the Reserve Inspector, Police Lines, Damoh
within 2-3 days and a report received from the Constable
Armour within three days and therefore, non sealing of the
articles at the spot appears to be not fatal in the present case.
Description of the articles given by the Constable Amour is
same as it is mentioned in the seizure memo and therefore, it
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:21602
5 CRR-2236-2024
appears that the Constable Amour examined the same fire
arm which was recovered from the applicant.
12. In this case also the revision petitioner was apprehended
during routine checking. Accordingly, the absence of specimen of seal
on the seized memo does not prove to be fatal in the present case.
13. The trial Court has dealt with non production of
Rojnamchasana in para-27 of the judgment and has assigned cogent
reasons and the findings are proper. The statement of Constable Kamal
Puri Goswami (PW/8) is not in contradiction to the other official
witnesses. He did not identify the revision petitioner/accused in the
court but asserts that a person was apprehended when he tried to escape
from the checking spot and also disclosed the details of the motorcycle
that was seized at the spot. The inability to recognize the revision
petitioner after 8 years of the incident does not demolish the testimony
of other witnesses or prosecution case. The appellate Court has
discussed the hostility of Jitendra (PW/2) and Gopal (PW/3) in para-21
of the judgment in the light of State Of Rajasthan vs Udai Lal -(2008)
11 SCC 408 and found the corroboration of the prosecution case from
the fact that signature of these witnesses were admitted at Ex.P/1 to
Ex.P/4 prepared at the spot.
14. Subhashchandra Verma (PW/9) has proved the sanction
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:21602
6 CRR-2236-2024
under section 39 of the Arms Act, 1959. There is no explanation of the
revision petitioner/accused regarding the possession of fire arm in his
possession either at the spot or at his home. Nothing has been brought
on record that official witnesses have any reason to falsely implicate the
revision petitioner. In the absence of any reason, testimony of official
witnesses cannot be suspected due to reason that they are police officials
in the light of the Apex Court judgment in the case of Rizwan Khan vs
The State Of Chhattisgarh - AIROnLine 2020 SC 722 . The relevant
portion is being reproduced as under:
...........It is true that all the aforesaid witnesses are police
officials and two independent witnesses who were panchnama
witnesses had turned hostile. However, all the aforesaid
police witnesses are found to be reliable and trustworthy. All
of them have been thoroughly cross-examined by the defence.
There is no allegation of any enmity between the police
witnesses and the accused. No such defence has been taken in
the statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C. There is no law that
the evidence of police officials, unless supported by
independent evidence, is to be discarded and/or unworthy of
acceptance.
It is settled law that the testimony of the official witnesses
cannot be rejected on the ground of non-corroboration by
independent witness. As observed and held by this Court in
catena of decisions, examination of independent witnesses is
not an indispensable requirement and such non-examination
is not necessarily fatal to the prosecution case, [see Pardeep
Kumar (supra)].
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:21602
7 CRR-2236-2024
In the recent decision in the case of Surinder Kumar v. State
of Punjab, (2020) 2 SCC 563, while considering somewhat
similar submission of non- examination of independent
witnesses, while dealing with the offence under the NDPS
Act, in paragraphs 15 and 16, this Court observed and held as
under:
"15. The judgment in Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab (2011)
3 SCC 521, relied on by the counsel for the respondent State
also supports the case of the prosecution. In the aforesaid
judgment, this Court has held that merely because
prosecution did not examine any independent witness, would
not necessarily lead to conclusion that the accused was falsely
implicated. The evidence of official witnesses cannot be
distrusted and disbelieved, merely on account of their official
status.
16. In State (NCT of Delhi) v. Sunil, (2011) 1 SCC 652, it
was held as under:
(SCC p. 655) It is an archaic notion that actions of the police
officer should be approached with initial distrust. It is time
now to start placing at least initial trust on the actions and the
documents made by the police. At any rate, the court cannot
start with the presumption that the police records are
untrustworthy.
As a proposition of law, the presumption should be the other
way round. That official acts of the police have been
regularly performed is a wise principle of presumption and
recognized even by the legislature."
15. Accordingly, the conviction of the revision petitioner under
section 25 (1-b) (a) of the Arms Act, 1959 is affirmed.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:21602
8 CRR-2236-2024
16. The revision petitioner has been awarded only minimum
sentence. The revision petitioner has significant criminal antecedents.
When we take into consideration the quantum of imprisonment, then
looking to the provisions of enhanced punishment through the Arms
(Amendment) Act, 2019 under Section 25 (1B)(a), the minimum
sentence imposed on revision petitioner/ accused suffers no illegality. It
does not call any interference for awarding lesser punishment.
Consequently, this criminal revision is devoid of any merit. Hence, it is
dismissed.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
hk/
